sch_render

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that output is an image and that findings are overlaid, and mentions tiling behavior. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., file modifications), limitations (max_images), or the exact return format. While some behavior is disclosed, significant gaps remain, especially given the absence of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with actionable usage tips. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It omits details on the return format (image path, base64, etc.), how findings are overlaid (severity filtering?), the effect of 'max_images', and the difference from sch_inspect. The description covers purpose and a few usage tips but leaves many operational aspects unexplained, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without further investigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (45%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'region' and 'around' by explaining their zoom purpose, and for 'tiles' via the readable tiles note. However, it does not clarify parameters like 'max_images', 'severity', 'findings', 'grid', or 'boxes', leaving them to the schema or inference. The description adds some value but only partially addresses the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool renders a page to PNG with findings boxed and numbered, referencing sch_lint for style. It distinguishes itself from linting tools by focusing on visual output. Specific verb 'Render' and resource 'page' make the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides practical guidance on using 'region' or 'around' for zooming and 'tiles' for splitting full sheets, which helps the agent decide on parameter usage. It implies the tool is for visual inspection but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sch_inspect or sch_fix. The context is clear enough for typical rendering needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.